Current Y9 will be first to be offered T-levels

[noblegiraffe]

Damian Hinds has rejected calls to delay the introduction of T-levels, so they will be first taught in 2020 in 3 subjects by a small number of providers before being properly rolled out.

The areas they will eventually cover will be: digital; construction; education and childcare; engineering and manufacturing; health and science; legal, finance and accounting; hair and beauty; agriculture, environment and animal care; business and administration; catering and hospitality; and creative and design.

Four other routes will be delivered through apprenticeships only: protective services; transport and logistics; sales, marketing and procurement; and social care.

www.tes.com/news/t-levels-what-we-know-so-far

They sound quite interesting, and a huge amount of money is being ploughed into this. BUT it’s a bit worrying that it seems there are concerns that they are being rushed and thus won’t be properly implemented.

So, apart from the mandatory 9 week work placement which seems to be new, is this just bringing together the BTECs, City&Guilds, Cambridge Technicals under one banner?

Also, given that for teaching purposes for a course, everyone will need to be on work placement simultaneously, how on earth is that going to work?

Genuinely interested as DD2 y8 won't be doing A levels, though it sounds as if she'll still be on the old courses.

So the government rushed the KS2 changes and fucked them up
They rushed the KS3 changes and fucked them up
They rushed the KS4 changes and are still fucking them up (whilst blocking V-levels for these subjects)

and now they are rushing T-levels.

what do I think? I think that they never learn and these "new" systems will also be poorly implemented, poorly supported and totally fucked up.

Oh and they also said that they would "pour money" in to the Engineering certs. Got interest from school, Pulled the money lost the pupils and blamed the schools for the resulting fuck up.

Massive amounts of work experience needed and no employers to offer it.

Rushed, ill thought out, badly funded.

Business as usual then.

Does the work experience have to be done in a single block? Could it be done a day a week or something like that?

Thanks Noble, I hadn't paid much attention to this previously. Seems very concerning to me (both from POV of students and FE teachers) the way they are rushing the apprenticeships strand. In particular the Social Care one alarms me.

The rules on work experience will change - they always do.

The issue is getting places. Some employers, will give places to some students but most employers don't give a fuck.

They want well rounded, well educated, ready to work, full of initiative young people, not the reality. Most 16 - 19 year olds need education and training. They need to be told what to do and where to go. They make stupid mistakes and need guidance because they are young and inexperienced.

The dozy kids who really need help and experience won't get near a placement. Education is not just about the brightest and the best it's about helping the students who can't manage it on their own.

Employers want FE colleges to provide work ready young people but won't or don't realise this should be a partnership. We need to work together to make a workforce for the future but employers see that as the job of FE colleges and not their responsibility.

That’s very true about employers wanting kids to be completely ready for the jobs they need them to do, Mousse, without actually having to contribute to their training. Then they complain about schools not preparing kids for the world of work when they’re not perfect. Work experience is a great way to help prepare them! My school has binned work experience in Y10 because it was too expensive and difficult to organise, and I don’t think we’re alone.

I wonder if the government will introduce something like the apprenticeship levy to ‘encourage’ employers to get involved with training.

Teen I don’t know anything about current vocational pathways, but the article seems to suggest that these will involve a massive increase in teaching time so would be completely new qualifications? I expect it’s thought that the others will be phased out.

And the U.K. lacks any interest or concern in vocational education as the reaction to this thread demonstrates. If A levels were changing we'd be at 900+ posts by now.

All the educational focus is on bright middle class kids all the rest - no one is interested. Sad isn't it?

I think, in theory, these sound like a reasonable idea for a lot of students, but of course if they are rushed in they will fail. Also, it will be interesting to see if employers actually value them- if they are just pass/fail, they may not be very useful to employers. Some of the subject areas also sound quite broad/vague, so people completing them may not have the specific skills needed to succeed in a particular industry.

I agree that the work placements could cause issues, and yes, some employers expect a 16yo on a work placement to know everything about the world of work already- clearly the point of a work placement is to support and teach them this. 45 days is a decent length placement- so if an employer is willing to put in some work initially, they may well get some useful hours out of the person by the end of the placement.

However, I've also supervised work placement/work experience students in an animal care setting. I'd say 75% of the placements worked well- the student got something out of it, and the business did too. For the other 25%, mostly the placements failed because students just stopped turning up for whatever reason, and I can see why this might put a small employer off accepting another student.

Personally, I think that for students wanting a vocational route, the best thing to do is to enable them to get industry specific exams. I think the equestrian industry has got this right to an extent- many employers respect the BHS exam system- or at least find it a useful indicator of someone's skill level. Many colleges offer this alongside other vocational industry training, and many apprentices can also access the exams. It's not perfect, and it has flaws, but candidates come out with a recognised qualification which will help them get work in the industry. It works, IMO, because it's very specific, so an employer can look at someone with, say, their stage 2, and say, well this shows this person can do X,Y,Z and has A + B theoretical knowledge.

I don't think a broad, vague qualification in "agriculture, environment and animal care" will have the same appeal.

Damian Hinds writing for the TES: www.tes.com/news/hinds-once-lifetime-opportunity

He says that T-levels will eventually replace all the current vocational courses. There might be a bit of a fight about that.

I suppose it depends what he means by "vocational" qualifications. I can't really see these replacing BTECs which are almost an alternative academic route these days- I can't really see "T levels" being an alternative route to university. I also can't really see them replacing very industry specific qualification.

I do think the reasoning behind them is good, and if the government can manage to get employers to respect them, that would be great. But if they're rushed through and not fit for purpose, or employers won't play ball with placements, I can see them quickly becoming a failed experiment.

Presumably he means phasing out all the current L3 vocational qualifications? A lot of 16-19 year olds don’t go in at that level in FE colleges (some aren’t ready for level 1 to start with) and some won’t get to level 3 but manage L2.
I remember the initial announcement about T levels but I haven’t heard a lot about them since. The intention was to have high level vocational courses as an alternative to A levels where appropriate. They are not necessarily less demanding but they are geared towards a specific job.

I predict this going the way of vocational A Levels, GNVQ and what ever else.

BTEC have been around for decades and are respected by employers and universities.

BTEC have been around for decades and are respected by employers and universities.

The issue we had with DD1's L3 BTEC was that it was way more written based than we were expecting. This may have been our fault, but I think the college over emphasized the practical elements. Given that DD1 hadn't done A levels because of her difficulties structuring written work, this wasn't great.
She just missed the change to including compulsory exams, which again is a reason why many people go down the BTEC route.

If they make the new vocational qualification too much written and not practical enough I don't think they will be fit for purpose.

There are all sorts of problems with vocational qualifications and have been for years. Some Employers seem to think graduates or school leavers are not good enough because they are not ready made employees. Some Employers seem loath to offer training and don’t get the best graduates or school leavers and then blame everyone else. They get what they pay for. If they had a top class reputation, they would get top class people.

Employers are hardly going to do better overall with young people who don’t have the qualifications to get to university. No-one seems to realise that the middle ground young person is now aspiring to university or a decent apprenticeship with a first class employer who will train them. This leaves vocational qualifications in a bit of a void. Look at the number of universities and degrees on offer now in comparison to 40 years ago. The well educated 18 year old who would have gone into work from school is now at university. Half of us from my grammar school went into work and trained on the job. Now everyone from my old school goes to university. No one gets a job at 18.

If the moaning employers want a better educated, job ready, young person they need to step up and offer high quality training and “day release”. In fact, I think a job and day release would suit loads of people. Why cannot students take out loans for day release like they do for full
time courses? This might make learning on the job more attractive to employers.

How T levels will improve English, Maths, confidence, ability to learn a job or deal with clients and customers I don’t really know.

If they don’t lead to a good job because the grads get the grad training scheme jobs, and the T qualifications cannot compete, I cannot see how the young people doing them are much further forward. Perhaps we might get plumbers and electricians out of it?

DH is a consulting engineer. It seems highly unlikely that T qualifications would float their boat. They need nailed on maths A level for a start. Would the T qualification holders be as good? What further qualifications would be open to them? If we have a need for a highly educated workforce, how “high” are T levels? Or are they really there to ensure the 16 year olds have something to aspire to but it’s not much in reality?

I do agree with Teen, BTECs are quite demanding for a lot of students and not really for those who aren't academic at all. I'm guessing the T-levels are aimed at students who maybe don't manage the old 5 A*-C (I guess 9-4) now. If things can be evidenced in different ways e.g. by creating a portfolio etc, that would be good for many students.

The problem to me is that they just seem very broad. If a student learns basic skills in a wide range of areas, this might be a good starting point, but employers want people with a lot of skills in a specific area. Perhaps a year of general study, then a year of more specialised training would be better.

The work placements need to be well supported or they won't work.

Bubbles Surely job + day release is an apprenticeship? I think in some cases/industries, these can work really well for people, but in others they are just filling time and sometimes working towards pointless qualifications. Some employers are great and do offer real on the job training and support, but others just want a cheap work force and essentially exploit their apprentices.

I think the idea is if the call it a T level it sounds a bit like A level so it will get more respect.

The government says words about valuing vocational education and wanting to make it equivalent to A levels so they change the quals. What they don't and won't do is fund it to the same level.

I meant day release should mean highly valued qualifications. I think some apprenticeships don’t offer this. Essentially you are right though, it is an apprenticeship but where do the apprentices go for wyskufuvstions post 18 if they are not doing a degree? The old colleges of higher education are now universities, so do they offer the day release part time courses that are not degrees? They used to and day release was better for it.

He says that T-levels will eventually replace all the current vocational courses. There might be a bit of a fight about that.

So does that mean our new apprenticeship standards that aren’t yet in place are likely to be replaced by something else? This lot really couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. Do they even have some sort of long term plan or are they just flailing about navigating blindfolded?

Bubbles I've only really seen it in equestrian jobs, so I couldn't comment on other fields but I know it works quite well for most apprentices and yards. Usually for their day release, they'd go to the local agricultural college, I'm not sure how the funding works, but I've known people do this for level 3 apprenticeships in their early 20s- so it's there. They mostly work towards industry qualifications (BHS exams) as well as their diplomas. Most of them have enough qualifications after level 3 to get a job in the industry (either at the same yard or elsewhere), some decide it's not for them, and at least have some work experience to help them get another job. I know one girl who's now off to Cirencester to study a degree something like "equine science and business" following a level 3 apprenticeship.

The apprentices do work hard, but they get a lot of experience in return. Often, they are also given other perks, such as free livery for a horse, the opportunity to compete or sometimes accommodation. I guess in some ways it works well because it follows the old "working pupil" system, so many employers have a long history and understanding of training people on the job, and may have been trained in a similar way themselves. There's also a set of relatively well respected industry exams which cater to people who may not be traditionally academic. It may also work well because most of the young people are very passionate about the industry, so they are really driven to succeed. It's not really something people do because they are not sure what else to do!

I'm sure there are some places where they are really exploited, though! I know in other industries, it doesn't work like this at all. I'm not sure apprenticeships really work in roles where there aren't lots of practical skills needed to succeed- with any trade/skill, you are learning by doing, so even if you're not actively being trained, you're practicing skills you've previously been trained in. In an office style environment, for example, I don't think this is the case as much, and I think apprenticeships are really just seen as cheap labour and not given the respect.

TeenTimesTwo

A lot depends on the teacher and the facilities.

So for one unit I have taught students have to 'identify hazards in a health or social care environment.'

Obviously you can get students to write a report or essay.

But, if you have a clinical room you can set up a 'disaster zone' if a manikin in bed with a fake cigarette in an oxygen mask.

The oxygen tubing is trailed across the floor next to a plastic turd. The sink is half full of water with some red food colour, the sheets are also trailing on the floor.

The assessor has a list of hazards, students come in to the room individually and you ask them to identify 10 hazards. The assessor ticks of each one as they are identified and adds some if the student comes up with one you hadn't intended.

If you don't have a clinical room but you do have something like moodle you can do an online version.

Unfortunately BTEC has had to include exams due to plagiarism. I've done several placements where, alongside teaching, I have inherited marking and students have been copying word for word from the book. The permanent teacher has either not picked up on it or has not seen a problem. Also for some parts of the unit it is difficult to not plagiarise, if you are making a poster of a eukaryotic cell there is not much you can put in your own words.

Hello LadyLance. I do understand the equine qualification system and as a former racehorse owner, I know quite a lot about racing yards and the hard work and expertise involved. In many equine yards, it's a way of life rather than the road to riches!

Therefore, I think equine careers are different from careers in other industries that the qualifications are supposed to train for. My query with these new qualification is how high can these young people go if they choose this route? Will the qualifications just suit a narrow group of young people who cannot get into university but who do not have the necessary grades to get onto a good training scheme? I therefore wonder about the quality ofthe training and prospects for the young people, which could be limited.

Bubbles I totally agree that working with horses isn't a road to riches at all, but for many people it can be a good career. And it's a sector where, arguably, the apprenticeship system is working. I don't think the new T levels would really offer a route in- they just seem too vague and broad.

If done well, hopefully they would offer a route for young people to get jobs in sectors where lots of specific skills aren't needed- I'm thinking entry level office jobs, entry level IT jobs type things. Done well, they would bridge the gap between 16 and 18 for these people and hopefully prepare them for the world of work. I don't think these are aimed at the future high flyers- but we don't need everyone to be a high flyer, and we do need something for these people to do aged 16-18 now.

Done badly, they're obviously no use to anyone.

“"As things stand today, it will clearly be very challenging to ensure that the first three T levels are ready to be taught from 2020 and beyond to a consistently high standard," he wrote. He added that accounting officers like him had to consider the "'regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility of public spending". "If these were the only considerations, you are aware that I would advise deferring the start date to 2021 in order to mitigate the feasibility and consequential value-for-money risks."”

Education’s permanent secretary said this, and Damian Hinds has ignored him.

“Only 66 ministerial directions have been issued since 1990 – and none of them were at the Department for Education. This highlights just how serious the concerns are at the very top of the DfE about the viability of introducing high-standard T levels in the planned timescale.”

So this isn’t great.

www.tes.com/news/hinds-political-future-depends-t-levels